Atheism OR Atheist - Youtube

Friday, April 20, 2012

Contemporary Atheism As Hyper-Real Irreligion: The Enchantment Of Science and Atheism In This Cosmos

"A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge" (Sagan 1994: 52).

Beginning in 2004 a spate of books appeared containing polemical discussion of the pathological acts of "Religion" and an admiration for an Atheistic/scientific worldview. These books achieved large sales and indicate a receptive public concerned about the public resurgence of religion and the erosion of scientific authority. In this chapter Possamai's (2007) hyper-real religions concept will be employed to gain an understanding of contemporary Atheism and its emergence in late modernity. Viewed through the lens of hyper-reality, Atheist materials and culture will be argued to support the individual ontological security of contemporary Atheists via an enchanted public image of scientific understanding and progress. These enchanted versions of science will be viewed as hyper-real in nature and as providing inspiration for the creation of meanings and identity supported by a naturalistic scientific cosmology.

Inspiring Quotes

Representation matters, and when various media reports combined to create the “New Atheist” meme without mentioning the contributions of the women involved in the movement, the result was that the meme itself became masculinized. And because contemporary atheism has become so synonymous with this initially identified group, women atheists may well continue to be overlooked by the mainstream (or will, as some female skeptics have, reject inclusion on principle). It’s a state of affairs very much in line with the history of women in other fields in which battling continued institutional neglect—as opposed to intrinsic hostility—is an ongoing theme.

So let’s reframe. For every mention of Hitchens, counter with a mention of Hecht. For every theory that male atheists are purer or more confrontational, let’s ask why we gender the philosophy of nonbelief to begin with. The ranks of atheists who don’t fit the popular profile are increasing, and with more attention paid to who isn’ta white male author with a fancy-pants book contract, the public face of nonbelief may begin to look as diverse as atheism’s adherents actually are. And if the work of women like Hecht, Jacoby, McCreight, and Gaylor indicates anything, it’s that there’s a need for atheist voices from all genders and sexes to—very rationally—make themselves heard.

Behavior rather than belief seems to be the defining factor of the spiritual atheist. Those who call themselves spiritual are engaged in helping others, caring for the environment, enjoying the outdoors, and generally spending time meditating on central themes. We can't fault that.

...what we would like to see, while no evidence for any gods exists or seems to be forthcoming, is that religion is practiced by adults, in their places of worship, without teaching anything other than comparative religion to children in the schools, without tax exemptions, and what we would also like to see is that religious belief is no longer perceived as some kind of necessary prerequisite for being a moral and responsible and loving and caring human being. Because it isn’t.

...here's the thing. When faced with horrors in our past -- our personal history, or our human history -- non-believers don't have any need to defend them. When non-believers look at a human history full of genocide, infanticide, slavery, forced marriage, etc. etc. etc., we're entirely free to say, "Damn. That was terrible. That was some seriously screwed-up shit we did. We were wrong to do that. Let's not ever do that again."

But for people who believe in a holy book, it's not that simple. When faced with horrors in their religion's history -- horrors that their holy book defends, and even praises -- believers have to do one of two things. They have to either a) cherry-pick the bits they like and ignore the bits they don't; or b) come up with contorted rationalizations for why the most blatant, grotesque, black-and-white evil really isn't all that bad.

"Debunking creationism may not be an appropriate topic to submit to Evolution or Paleobiology, but creationism is believed by millions and supported by well-funded institutions that promote it avidly. Therefore, I think, in addition to their responsibilities to their professions, scientists also have a responsibility to enter into the public discussion on these topics. Otherwise, the field is just abandoned to the creationists. The same goes with topics like global warming and the weirdly resurgent phobia about vaccinations. These issues affect the public well-being and those with the expertise need to participate in the discussion. Similarly, participating in discussions on SO is my, very modest, way of playing the role of "public intellectual."